Fred Thompson was campaigning in Bristol, New Hampshire today. While making a stop at a local gun store, Fred had some critical words for Rudy Giuliani.
"(Giuliani) simply supported just about every gun control legislation that came down the pike. And I just disagree with him on that.... over the years and he's been very outspoken about it. Of course he's not outspoken about it anymore," Thompson told reporters with a smile. "It's a major differentiation. He relates everything to New York City ... Well, New York City is not emblematic of the rest of the country.
He does make an excellent point. While Rudy did manage a very large economy in New York City, and was an excellent mayor and strong leader during the post-9/11 recovery, New York is not representative of America as a whole. Rudy has also been very quiet about his past viewpoints on gun control, although I think that is partially due to Rudy knowing that gun control plays better to New York voters than it does to voters in places like the midwest and the deep south.
I don't quite have the problems with Rudy that other people do, and I actually like the man, but Rudy is only the 2nd best option for me.
That's because I support Fred Thompson.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Rasmussen Poll: Voter Mood Swinging Away From Left
According to Rasmussen Reports, the Democrats are still winning the "trust" war with voters. However, this trust is slipping away from them, and moving back towards the Republicans little-by-little.
On 10 major issues, Democrats are more trusted by Republicans on 7 of those issues (Gov't Ethics/Corruption, Economy, Health Care, Social Security, Education, Iraq, Immigration). Republicans are more trusted on the other 3 issues (National Security, Taxes, Abortion).
However, just a month ago, Democrats held an advantage on 9 out of 10 issues.
Also, the favorable margins Democrats once held in many areas are shrinking fast. For example, in September, Dems held a 16% advantage on the issue of Health Care. In October, it was a 21% advantage. This month, that advantage is down to 8%.
Dems went from an 8% advantage on the issue of abortion to a 1% disadvantage from October to November. They also went from a 13% advantage on the issue of Education to a 2% advantage.
Could it be that the Demcratic Party's wave has already crested and crashed? If this trend continues, it spells better hope and prospects for next year's elections.
On 10 major issues, Democrats are more trusted by Republicans on 7 of those issues (Gov't Ethics/Corruption, Economy, Health Care, Social Security, Education, Iraq, Immigration). Republicans are more trusted on the other 3 issues (National Security, Taxes, Abortion).
However, just a month ago, Democrats held an advantage on 9 out of 10 issues.
Also, the favorable margins Democrats once held in many areas are shrinking fast. For example, in September, Dems held a 16% advantage on the issue of Health Care. In October, it was a 21% advantage. This month, that advantage is down to 8%.
Dems went from an 8% advantage on the issue of abortion to a 1% disadvantage from October to November. They also went from a 13% advantage on the issue of Education to a 2% advantage.
Could it be that the Demcratic Party's wave has already crested and crashed? If this trend continues, it spells better hope and prospects for next year's elections.
Bill Clinton to 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist: "How Dare You"
Once in a while, Bill Clinton will do something or say something that makes me think that he's not a totally bad guy.
Like shutting down a heckler at a Hillary fundraiser who claimed 9/11 was an inside job and a fraud.
While I don't think he did enough with the supposedly vast amounts of information he had on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, at least he won't let this extreme-left conspiracy BS stand...and for that, I do applaud him.
However, I hope that Clinton supporters do not attempt to use this as some kind of symbol that the Clintons are "tough on terror", because if Bill had been tough on terror in the first place, he would not have had a heckler to shut down...because 9/11 would not have happened.
Like shutting down a heckler at a Hillary fundraiser who claimed 9/11 was an inside job and a fraud.
While I don't think he did enough with the supposedly vast amounts of information he had on Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, at least he won't let this extreme-left conspiracy BS stand...and for that, I do applaud him.
However, I hope that Clinton supporters do not attempt to use this as some kind of symbol that the Clintons are "tough on terror", because if Bill had been tough on terror in the first place, he would not have had a heckler to shut down...because 9/11 would not have happened.
Krauthammer: No Reason to Abandon Iraq Yet
Charles Krauthammer's article , "Benching Benchmarks", at National Review Online speaks volumes about how we have been achieving success in Iraq, and that we should not give up yet. He opens up with this statement.
It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the last several months is of equal moment — a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.
And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: “This is not working. ... We must reverse it.” A euphemism for “abandon the field,” which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.
Very, very true. All of our military's work, and the efforts of the surge, are showing more and more signs of success. We're on the cusp of really breaking through and ending this occupation in a favorable, victorious manner...and these anti-war Dems still can't accept that.
Their excuse is found in the statement "Iraq has not achieved the political benchmarks set". Krauthammer acknowledges that having all of these benchmarks achieved is a good thing, and would make for a faster end to all of this...but it's not quite necessary at this point. Read on...
But does the absence of this deus ex machina invalidate our hard-won gains? Why does this mean that we cannot achieve success by other means?
Sure, there is no oil law. But the central government is nonetheless distributing oil revenues to the provinces, where the funds are being used for reconstruction.
Sure, the de-Baathification law has not been modified. But the whole purpose of modification was to entice Sunni insurgents to give up the insurgency and join the new order. This is already happening on a widening scale all over the country in the absence of a relaxed de-Baathification law.
As for federalism, the Kurds are running their own region, the Sunni sheiks in Anbar and elsewhere are exercising not just autonomy but control of their own security, and the southern Shiites are essentially governing themselves, the British having withdrawn in all but name.
Yes, a provincial powers law would be nice because it would allow for provincial elections. We should push hard for it. But we already have effective provincial and tribal autonomy in pivotal regions of the country.
So, while the legislative benchmarks have not been reached from the top down...success is being reached from the ground up. Krauthammer continues...
Why is top-down national reconciliation as yet unattainable? Because decades of Saddam’s totalitarianism followed by the brutality of the post-invasion insurgency destroyed much of the political infrastructure of the country, causing the Iraqis to revert to the most basic political attachment — tribe and locality. Gen. David Petraeus’s genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders — without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shiite militias quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?
Good question. The answer is simple...there is no reason to do so. Our troops are playing a big part in helping Iraqis build stability in their own nation from the ground up. Soon enough, the central government in Baghdad will be stabilized, and we'll begin to see that despite all of the violence, bloodshed, and lives lost...it was not in vain, but for a more secure world for everyone, including you and I, to live in.
It does not have the drama of the Inchon landing or the sweep of the Union comeback in the summer of 1864. But the turnabout of American fortunes in Iraq over the last several months is of equal moment — a war seemingly lost, now winnable. The violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. Political allegiances have been radically reversed. The revival of ordinary life in many cities is palpable. Something important is happening.
And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: “This is not working. ... We must reverse it.” A euphemism for “abandon the field,” which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.
Very, very true. All of our military's work, and the efforts of the surge, are showing more and more signs of success. We're on the cusp of really breaking through and ending this occupation in a favorable, victorious manner...and these anti-war Dems still can't accept that.
Their excuse is found in the statement "Iraq has not achieved the political benchmarks set". Krauthammer acknowledges that having all of these benchmarks achieved is a good thing, and would make for a faster end to all of this...but it's not quite necessary at this point. Read on...
But does the absence of this deus ex machina invalidate our hard-won gains? Why does this mean that we cannot achieve success by other means?
Sure, there is no oil law. But the central government is nonetheless distributing oil revenues to the provinces, where the funds are being used for reconstruction.
Sure, the de-Baathification law has not been modified. But the whole purpose of modification was to entice Sunni insurgents to give up the insurgency and join the new order. This is already happening on a widening scale all over the country in the absence of a relaxed de-Baathification law.
As for federalism, the Kurds are running their own region, the Sunni sheiks in Anbar and elsewhere are exercising not just autonomy but control of their own security, and the southern Shiites are essentially governing themselves, the British having withdrawn in all but name.
Yes, a provincial powers law would be nice because it would allow for provincial elections. We should push hard for it. But we already have effective provincial and tribal autonomy in pivotal regions of the country.
So, while the legislative benchmarks have not been reached from the top down...success is being reached from the ground up. Krauthammer continues...
Why is top-down national reconciliation as yet unattainable? Because decades of Saddam’s totalitarianism followed by the brutality of the post-invasion insurgency destroyed much of the political infrastructure of the country, causing the Iraqis to revert to the most basic political attachment — tribe and locality. Gen. David Petraeus’s genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders — without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shiite militias quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?
Good question. The answer is simple...there is no reason to do so. Our troops are playing a big part in helping Iraqis build stability in their own nation from the ground up. Soon enough, the central government in Baghdad will be stabilized, and we'll begin to see that despite all of the violence, bloodshed, and lives lost...it was not in vain, but for a more secure world for everyone, including you and I, to live in.
The "Gore's" Prayer
Found this in the comments section of an article at The New Editor, credit goes to comment #9, "Buck". I don't know if "Buck" created this himself, but I had a good laugh at this and I've never seen it before. Enjoy...
Al Father, who art in transit,
Phony be thy game.
Thy Lear-Jet hums.
Those lies you’ve spun,
About Earth, and your huge mansion.
Give us a break, your daily dread.
And forgive us with bus passes,
As we curse those flying first-class above us.
And lead us not into stagflation,
But humor us more, Sir Carbon-Knievel.
Amen!
Al Father, who art in transit,
Phony be thy game.
Thy Lear-Jet hums.
Those lies you’ve spun,
About Earth, and your huge mansion.
Give us a break, your daily dread.
And forgive us with bus passes,
As we curse those flying first-class above us.
And lead us not into stagflation,
But humor us more, Sir Carbon-Knievel.
Amen!
Study Finds That Democrats are the Party of the Rich
Of course, us conservatives knew that already.
Rich people vote for Democrats...it's common knowledge, now we have statistical proof.
According to study by the Heritage Foundation, more than half of the wealthiest households in America are concentrated in the 18 states where Dems hold both Senate seats. Also, out the wealthiest 1/3rd of Congressional districts, 58% of those seats are held by Democrats.
The measurement of wealth was determined by the number of individuals in each district or state that are earning over $100,000/year, and joint-filing married couples earning over $200,000/year.
This is definitely contrary to constant harping of Democrats that the GOP is the "party of the rich". This same study showed that the majority of Republicans in Congress come from areas or states that are largely middle-class.
Rich people vote for Democrats...it's common knowledge, now we have statistical proof.
According to study by the Heritage Foundation, more than half of the wealthiest households in America are concentrated in the 18 states where Dems hold both Senate seats. Also, out the wealthiest 1/3rd of Congressional districts, 58% of those seats are held by Democrats.
The measurement of wealth was determined by the number of individuals in each district or state that are earning over $100,000/year, and joint-filing married couples earning over $200,000/year.
This is definitely contrary to constant harping of Democrats that the GOP is the "party of the rich". This same study showed that the majority of Republicans in Congress come from areas or states that are largely middle-class.
Sarkozy 1, Old Socialist Ways 0
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is emerging as victorious in his standoff with the striking rail and subway workers of France.
The strike was a protest against Sarkozy, who was abandoning the current entitlements and generous pay for early retirement and pension for rail workers. Sarkozy's belief is that the government payouts for these benefits is part of the reason that France is not competitive economically.
Sarkozy is in the midst of a dynamic attempt to revitalize a French economy that has been plagued by an unemployment rate that was over 8% as of 2006, and slow or stagnant growth since the increased socialism and nationalization of industry and banks during the 1980's under Francois Mitterrand.
The initial tide of popularity for the strike amongst the rail and subway workers has "collapsed", as many union representatives have stated, and the workers are returning in droves.
Of the 45 rail union committees in France, 42 have already voted to abandon the strike and return to work.
The strike was a protest against Sarkozy, who was abandoning the current entitlements and generous pay for early retirement and pension for rail workers. Sarkozy's belief is that the government payouts for these benefits is part of the reason that France is not competitive economically.
Sarkozy is in the midst of a dynamic attempt to revitalize a French economy that has been plagued by an unemployment rate that was over 8% as of 2006, and slow or stagnant growth since the increased socialism and nationalization of industry and banks during the 1980's under Francois Mitterrand.
The initial tide of popularity for the strike amongst the rail and subway workers has "collapsed", as many union representatives have stated, and the workers are returning in droves.
Of the 45 rail union committees in France, 42 have already voted to abandon the strike and return to work.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Holiday Travel Not as Bad as Predicted...So Far
Trains and Planes have been sold out. We've seen a 1.5 percent increase in people who plan to drive over 50 miles from last year.
Yet, for some reason, traffic has been surprisingly decent for travelers...whether by plane, train, or automobile.
While there are definitely crowds of people, it hasn't been the mad rush of insanity that many prognosticators, well, prognosticated...as evidenced in the article I cited above.
"I haven't found the madhouse I thought I would find," Lou Lecalsey, 68, said at Philadelphia International Airport as he waited for a flight home to Green Bay, Wis., after seeing his new granddaughter in Lancaster, Pa.
Encouraging news, as all kinds of preparations were made for what is supposed to be the busiest Thanksgiving travel season ever.
Yet, for some reason, traffic has been surprisingly decent for travelers...whether by plane, train, or automobile.
While there are definitely crowds of people, it hasn't been the mad rush of insanity that many prognosticators, well, prognosticated...as evidenced in the article I cited above.
"I haven't found the madhouse I thought I would find," Lou Lecalsey, 68, said at Philadelphia International Airport as he waited for a flight home to Green Bay, Wis., after seeing his new granddaughter in Lancaster, Pa.
Encouraging news, as all kinds of preparations were made for what is supposed to be the busiest Thanksgiving travel season ever.
A Revelation On My Part
We, as bloggers/pundits/political observors always talk about who candidates "target". Who are they trying to win support from. We talk about "well, if they can win the vote of Group X, blah blah blah..."
We also tend to jump on a candidate we support early, and stick with them. Rarely do we switch support unless primary results, campaign drop-outs, scandals, or some other major event comes along and shakes things up.
However, I've recently discovered that I'm being targeted for my vote by two GOP presidential candidates in a way that I haven't been targeted before. I've noticed it in my own blog postings, in reading/viewing campaign ads and listening to supporters of other candidates.
Lately, I've been feeling like Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul have a hold on each one of my arms, and are pulling very hard. It seems that both Rudy and Ron have done a good job of at least attempting to court voters like myself, who are more fiscally-motivated rather than socially-motivated (even with Rudy courting the socially conservative vote, as well).
My worries with Ron Paul lie on a national defense level. I'm a bit worried that his anti-war bent also means a reduction in national security. I'm also a bit worried that Paul would take things one step too far, too quickly in terms of how he would change income tax laws and the federal reserve.
My worries with Rudy lie in trying to decipher how fiscally conservative he is. He is often painted as a moderate, or even a liberal, but is that due to his social issue stances or do his fiscal stances play a part in this depiction? As for his 2nd Amendment stances, I believe his gun-control advocacy as Mayor of New York won't come into play nearly as much if he was President.
However, just as I begin to think "maybe I should reconsider who I support", I see things in Fred Thompson that reinforce why I believe in the man. However, I can't deny that I'm feel like I'm being courted by not only Thompson, but Rudy and Ron Paul as well. This speaks volumes about all of these candidates involved.
We also tend to jump on a candidate we support early, and stick with them. Rarely do we switch support unless primary results, campaign drop-outs, scandals, or some other major event comes along and shakes things up.
However, I've recently discovered that I'm being targeted for my vote by two GOP presidential candidates in a way that I haven't been targeted before. I've noticed it in my own blog postings, in reading/viewing campaign ads and listening to supporters of other candidates.
Lately, I've been feeling like Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul have a hold on each one of my arms, and are pulling very hard. It seems that both Rudy and Ron have done a good job of at least attempting to court voters like myself, who are more fiscally-motivated rather than socially-motivated (even with Rudy courting the socially conservative vote, as well).
My worries with Ron Paul lie on a national defense level. I'm a bit worried that his anti-war bent also means a reduction in national security. I'm also a bit worried that Paul would take things one step too far, too quickly in terms of how he would change income tax laws and the federal reserve.
My worries with Rudy lie in trying to decipher how fiscally conservative he is. He is often painted as a moderate, or even a liberal, but is that due to his social issue stances or do his fiscal stances play a part in this depiction? As for his 2nd Amendment stances, I believe his gun-control advocacy as Mayor of New York won't come into play nearly as much if he was President.
However, just as I begin to think "maybe I should reconsider who I support", I see things in Fred Thompson that reinforce why I believe in the man. However, I can't deny that I'm feel like I'm being courted by not only Thompson, but Rudy and Ron Paul as well. This speaks volumes about all of these candidates involved.
A Dem's Proposal I Could Support
Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina (Redskins fans may remember this guy as our Quarterback during Norv Turner's early years) has introduced the SAVE Act (H.R. 4088), which will force employers to screen all potential employees for their immigration status using a method that apparently has been proven to work effectively.
Apparently, over 100 Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives support this bill, so it's good to see that there is bipartisan support for legislation that enforces our immigration laws.
Call or e-mail your Congressman and tell him to support this legislation!
Apparently, over 100 Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives support this bill, so it's good to see that there is bipartisan support for legislation that enforces our immigration laws.
Call or e-mail your Congressman and tell him to support this legislation!
Further Speculation About Chris Saxman
An article in today's Daily News-Record talks about Chris Saxman's possible run at the GOP nomination for John Warner's soon-to-be open seat. Jim Gilmore is currently the only Republican that has announced their candidacy.
James Madison University political science professor Robert Roberts was quoted in the article as stating that Saxman makes sense as a candidate, and that if Gov. Tim Kaine continues to have issues with the state budget, it would have a negative effect on assumed Democratic candidate Mark Warner, and Saxman could be able to place a sizeable amount of blame on Warner for contributing to current budget issues because of his policies during his term as Governor.
Especially since Saxman has been an advocate of cost-cutting and lower taxes...neither of which was part of Mark Warner's agenda as Governor. Should budget issues continue, Saxman may have a silver bullet in his arsenal.
However, Saxman may also have another rocket booster for his potential campaign.
He recently joined John Warner as co-chair of John McCain's presidential campaign in Virginia. Despite some grumbling from the hard-right about Warner's blasting of the Virginia GOP for refusing to be a "big tent", Warner remains a popular figure amongst most Republicans and Independents in Virginia.
With Saxman working so closely with Warner, he could win an endorsement from the outgoing statesman...which would be a huge boost for Saxman and a large obstacle for both Jim Gilmore and Mark Warner both to overcome.
Although it's probably meaningless at this point, right now Saxman is beating Gilmore by a vote of 33-5 in a poll at Republitarian.com.
James Madison University political science professor Robert Roberts was quoted in the article as stating that Saxman makes sense as a candidate, and that if Gov. Tim Kaine continues to have issues with the state budget, it would have a negative effect on assumed Democratic candidate Mark Warner, and Saxman could be able to place a sizeable amount of blame on Warner for contributing to current budget issues because of his policies during his term as Governor.
Especially since Saxman has been an advocate of cost-cutting and lower taxes...neither of which was part of Mark Warner's agenda as Governor. Should budget issues continue, Saxman may have a silver bullet in his arsenal.
However, Saxman may also have another rocket booster for his potential campaign.
He recently joined John Warner as co-chair of John McCain's presidential campaign in Virginia. Despite some grumbling from the hard-right about Warner's blasting of the Virginia GOP for refusing to be a "big tent", Warner remains a popular figure amongst most Republicans and Independents in Virginia.
With Saxman working so closely with Warner, he could win an endorsement from the outgoing statesman...which would be a huge boost for Saxman and a large obstacle for both Jim Gilmore and Mark Warner both to overcome.
Although it's probably meaningless at this point, right now Saxman is beating Gilmore by a vote of 33-5 in a poll at Republitarian.com.
Kudlow: A "New Fire in Fred's Belly"
Lawrence Kudlow recently sat down for an interview with Fred Thompson on "Kudlow and Company", and he talks about his sense of a renewed energy within Thompson himself.
An energetic and forceful Fred Thompson sat down with me last week on Kudlow and Company to talk politics and the economy. The former Tennessee senator was in good form -- more animated than I've seen him, and definitely a different person than the one I interviewed six months ago.
This is the Fred Thompson people like me are looking for, see below...
Speaking of limited government and budget overspending, I asked if a President Thompson would veto the $300 billion earmark-pocked pork-barrel farm bill now before Congress. He called this legislation "disgraceful," noted that it wouldn't even help small family farms, and that it would block the expansion of world free trade.
When I asked him about Warren Buffett, the famous investor billionaire, Thompson turned up the heat. In testimony before the Senate last week, Buffett advocated a whole series of tax hikes, such as an increase in the death tax, higher capital gains and dividend taxes, and more taxes on private partnerships, hedge funds, and private-equity buyout firms. Thompson labeled this policy dead wrong. He said Buffett is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party. He argued that the wealth of the government is the not the same thing as the wealth of nations, and that history proves lower tax rates promote economic growth.
And he said Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates are blind to all this. He noted that the top 5 percent of income earners now pay 60 percent of all tax collections; that the tax code is progressive enough; that there's plenty of economic mobility in the country; that for those who have fallen behind, the problem is poor education, not tax rates; and that America is the freest, most prosperous, most powerful nation in the history of the world.
More truth from Fred. Kudlow then discusses Thompson's renewed "fire" and his honest, strong-willed approach to issues.
Thompson wants to tell the truth about Social Security and force everyone else in the game to respond. This issue is a real character-building definer for Fred Thompson. No one else on the campaign trail, in either party, is willing to discuss Social Security in such frank terms.
But that's the revitalized Fred Thompson. The more I challenged him, the more animated he became. He simply refused to stand down.
Some people say Thompson doesn't have the fire in his belly to go the distance. I don't think that's true. And I'm not picking or endorsing any candidates here. But Thompson has an honest, clear, straightforward message of economic freedom and problem solving.
Then, he goes after front-runner Rudy Giuliani.
Then I brought up the CNBC/Wall Street Journal debate of a few weeks ago, when Thompson slammed Rudy Giuliani. I asked if he intended to continue to pound Giuliani on the campaign trail. He said, "I haven't pounded all day." I asked, What about yesterday? He said, "Well, we're pointing out some policy differences. [Giuliani] believes in federal funding for abortion. He went to court to stop our bill outlawing sanctuary cities. He's never met a gun-control bill he didn't like."
A sharp-edged Fred Thompson.
Can he win? His campaign strategists told me they are pouring tons of money into Iowa advertising. They see a strong opportunity for a Thompson surge in the state, undermining Romney and inflicting damage on Giuliani. Walking off the set, Thompson told me this election will be about peace and prosperity. And he intends to fight hard.
This is the man that so many of us support. He stands for what he believes in, and fleshes out his proposals with depth and detail not seen from most of the other candidates. Fight on, Fred, fight on.
An energetic and forceful Fred Thompson sat down with me last week on Kudlow and Company to talk politics and the economy. The former Tennessee senator was in good form -- more animated than I've seen him, and definitely a different person than the one I interviewed six months ago.
This is the Fred Thompson people like me are looking for, see below...
Speaking of limited government and budget overspending, I asked if a President Thompson would veto the $300 billion earmark-pocked pork-barrel farm bill now before Congress. He called this legislation "disgraceful," noted that it wouldn't even help small family farms, and that it would block the expansion of world free trade.
When I asked him about Warren Buffett, the famous investor billionaire, Thompson turned up the heat. In testimony before the Senate last week, Buffett advocated a whole series of tax hikes, such as an increase in the death tax, higher capital gains and dividend taxes, and more taxes on private partnerships, hedge funds, and private-equity buyout firms. Thompson labeled this policy dead wrong. He said Buffett is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Democratic party. He argued that the wealth of the government is the not the same thing as the wealth of nations, and that history proves lower tax rates promote economic growth.
And he said Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic candidates are blind to all this. He noted that the top 5 percent of income earners now pay 60 percent of all tax collections; that the tax code is progressive enough; that there's plenty of economic mobility in the country; that for those who have fallen behind, the problem is poor education, not tax rates; and that America is the freest, most prosperous, most powerful nation in the history of the world.
More truth from Fred. Kudlow then discusses Thompson's renewed "fire" and his honest, strong-willed approach to issues.
Thompson wants to tell the truth about Social Security and force everyone else in the game to respond. This issue is a real character-building definer for Fred Thompson. No one else on the campaign trail, in either party, is willing to discuss Social Security in such frank terms.
But that's the revitalized Fred Thompson. The more I challenged him, the more animated he became. He simply refused to stand down.
Some people say Thompson doesn't have the fire in his belly to go the distance. I don't think that's true. And I'm not picking or endorsing any candidates here. But Thompson has an honest, clear, straightforward message of economic freedom and problem solving.
Then, he goes after front-runner Rudy Giuliani.
Then I brought up the CNBC/Wall Street Journal debate of a few weeks ago, when Thompson slammed Rudy Giuliani. I asked if he intended to continue to pound Giuliani on the campaign trail. He said, "I haven't pounded all day." I asked, What about yesterday? He said, "Well, we're pointing out some policy differences. [Giuliani] believes in federal funding for abortion. He went to court to stop our bill outlawing sanctuary cities. He's never met a gun-control bill he didn't like."
A sharp-edged Fred Thompson.
Can he win? His campaign strategists told me they are pouring tons of money into Iowa advertising. They see a strong opportunity for a Thompson surge in the state, undermining Romney and inflicting damage on Giuliani. Walking off the set, Thompson told me this election will be about peace and prosperity. And he intends to fight hard.
This is the man that so many of us support. He stands for what he believes in, and fleshes out his proposals with depth and detail not seen from most of the other candidates. Fight on, Fred, fight on.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
WHOOO!!
Being a pro-wrestling fan, this caught my eye.
Apparently, one of the greatest wrestlers of all-time is endorsing Mike Huckabee for President. That man is none other than "Nature Boy" Ric Flair...WHOOO!!
You all know who Ric Flair is. He's the "kiss-stealin', wheelin'-and-dealin', limosuine-ridin', jet-flyin' son-of-a-gun."
Huckabee also has the endorsements of rocker Ted Nugent and all-around bad-ass Chuck Norris. How Huckabee, the "nice guy minister", is snatching up endorsements from these pop-culture mainstays is a bit beyond me.
Then again, it's not a real surprise as athletes tend to lean conservative at about the same rate as those in the entertainment industry lean liberal.
Also, Norris is a conservative commentator who I have on my national blogroll. Nugent is a radio-show host as well who is very pro-2nd Amendment. Flair has his own financial company and also is known for having a pretty good insight into subjects like politics.
(h/t Below The Beltway)
Apparently, one of the greatest wrestlers of all-time is endorsing Mike Huckabee for President. That man is none other than "Nature Boy" Ric Flair...WHOOO!!
You all know who Ric Flair is. He's the "kiss-stealin', wheelin'-and-dealin', limosuine-ridin', jet-flyin' son-of-a-gun."
Huckabee also has the endorsements of rocker Ted Nugent and all-around bad-ass Chuck Norris. How Huckabee, the "nice guy minister", is snatching up endorsements from these pop-culture mainstays is a bit beyond me.
Then again, it's not a real surprise as athletes tend to lean conservative at about the same rate as those in the entertainment industry lean liberal.
Also, Norris is a conservative commentator who I have on my national blogroll. Nugent is a radio-show host as well who is very pro-2nd Amendment. Flair has his own financial company and also is known for having a pretty good insight into subjects like politics.
(h/t Below The Beltway)
DeLay Slams GOP
From the Yeas and Nays blog at examiner.com...
DeLay told Yeas & Nays that Republicans in Congress are "looking for something to believe in" and "they're not getting it out of this Republican leadership. … The leadership just isn't getting it."
"They're looking for some backbone," said DeLay, who also chimed in on the 2008 election. He said the Republican party is "going to get our clocks cleaned in 2008" and unequivocally said that "Hillary [Clinton] will be the next president."
Way to show some optimism, Tom! He did chime in with this little tidbit that I found rather amusing.
But, lest you think that The Hammer is about to start playing for the other team, he did poke fun at New York Times columnist -- and favorite conservative punching bag -- Paul Krugman: "I'd like to bitch-slap him."
I think a lot of us would like to do that.
DeLay told Yeas & Nays that Republicans in Congress are "looking for something to believe in" and "they're not getting it out of this Republican leadership. … The leadership just isn't getting it."
"They're looking for some backbone," said DeLay, who also chimed in on the 2008 election. He said the Republican party is "going to get our clocks cleaned in 2008" and unequivocally said that "Hillary [Clinton] will be the next president."
Way to show some optimism, Tom! He did chime in with this little tidbit that I found rather amusing.
But, lest you think that The Hammer is about to start playing for the other team, he did poke fun at New York Times columnist -- and favorite conservative punching bag -- Paul Krugman: "I'd like to bitch-slap him."
I think a lot of us would like to do that.
WOW
Somebody does not like John Maxfield.
UPDATE: SWAC Girl asked that I remove this post because she does not find it prudent to provide free publicity to someone who would stoop so low in their discourse.
I originally planned to simply let this obvious slander-blog stand on it's own merits (decrepit or otherwise) and let you, the people, decide what you think about it. However, SWAC Girl did inspire me to provide my own thoughts.
I have my ideological differences with John/Alex/Whatever his real name is. I have no problem playing point-counterpoint. Sometimes I agree with him (and the rest of the SWAC Nation). Sometimes I don't.
Anyway, back around primary season and the ensuing months that followed, a serious look at "blogging ethics" took place. I received a good amount of praise from Virginia Oddsmaker (remember them) for being a bit of a "conscience" to the blogosphere in Virginia (praise I accepted with humility, with a slight bit of pride).
I posted this for the sake of it's simple "newsworthy" appeal to other Virginia bloggers, not because I endorse such a thing. I have no problem discussing, debated, or denouncing issues and positions with people...but at the same time, I do not agree with slander of this nature.
I would not do it to another person myself, and I would be very angry if someone did it to me. I'm leaving this link available so people can see the uglier side of blogging, because unfortunately, it does exist.
UPDATE: SWAC Girl asked that I remove this post because she does not find it prudent to provide free publicity to someone who would stoop so low in their discourse.
I originally planned to simply let this obvious slander-blog stand on it's own merits (decrepit or otherwise) and let you, the people, decide what you think about it. However, SWAC Girl did inspire me to provide my own thoughts.
I have my ideological differences with John/Alex/Whatever his real name is. I have no problem playing point-counterpoint. Sometimes I agree with him (and the rest of the SWAC Nation). Sometimes I don't.
Anyway, back around primary season and the ensuing months that followed, a serious look at "blogging ethics" took place. I received a good amount of praise from Virginia Oddsmaker (remember them) for being a bit of a "conscience" to the blogosphere in Virginia (praise I accepted with humility, with a slight bit of pride).
I posted this for the sake of it's simple "newsworthy" appeal to other Virginia bloggers, not because I endorse such a thing. I have no problem discussing, debated, or denouncing issues and positions with people...but at the same time, I do not agree with slander of this nature.
I would not do it to another person myself, and I would be very angry if someone did it to me. I'm leaving this link available so people can see the uglier side of blogging, because unfortunately, it does exist.
Presidential Poll Potpourri
Here's some interesting news and notes from the world of political polling...
- Barack Obama has now passed Hillary Clinton in the Iowa polls, pulling in 30% compared to Clinton's 26%. John Edwards isn't too far behind Clinton at 22%, and Bill Richardson is polling 4th with 11%. What's funny is that this parity in numbers looks similar to the Republican polls.
- Personality vs. Policy...Democratic voters weighing personal traits more than policy positions, Republican voters emphasizing policy stances over personality. Anyone else not surprised by this?
- From the same story above, Rudy Giuliani is the most personally likeable candidates on either side, Barack Obama is the most likeable Democrat. Likeability ratings cross party lines in an interesting way. Mike Huckabee supporters are generally the "happiest" people in America compared to supporters of other candidates.
- Approval Ratings...Gallup Poll: Congress 20%, Bush 32%. Congress' numbers are near the all-time low set by in 1993...not surprisingly, the Democrats had control of Congress then, as well.
- Rasmussen Reports: Rudy Giuliani leads in Florida primary polls with 27%, Mitt Romney at 19%, Fred Thompson at 16%. Iowa polls have Romney at 29%, Huckabee at 16%, Giuliani at 15%, and Fred Thompson at 14%. New Hampshire is similar with Romney at 26%, Huckabee at 18%, Giuliani with 15%, and Fred Thompson at 14%.
- RealClearPolitics GOP National Poll Averages: Giuliani 27.8%, Thompson 14.8%, Romney 13.4%, McCain 12.8%, Huckabee 8.8%, Paul 4.6%. Romney is polling as high as 21% and as low as 8% in some polls. Fred is anywhere between 12-19%.
- Barack Obama has now passed Hillary Clinton in the Iowa polls, pulling in 30% compared to Clinton's 26%. John Edwards isn't too far behind Clinton at 22%, and Bill Richardson is polling 4th with 11%. What's funny is that this parity in numbers looks similar to the Republican polls.
- Personality vs. Policy...Democratic voters weighing personal traits more than policy positions, Republican voters emphasizing policy stances over personality. Anyone else not surprised by this?
- From the same story above, Rudy Giuliani is the most personally likeable candidates on either side, Barack Obama is the most likeable Democrat. Likeability ratings cross party lines in an interesting way. Mike Huckabee supporters are generally the "happiest" people in America compared to supporters of other candidates.
- Approval Ratings...Gallup Poll: Congress 20%, Bush 32%. Congress' numbers are near the all-time low set by in 1993...not surprisingly, the Democrats had control of Congress then, as well.
- Rasmussen Reports: Rudy Giuliani leads in Florida primary polls with 27%, Mitt Romney at 19%, Fred Thompson at 16%. Iowa polls have Romney at 29%, Huckabee at 16%, Giuliani at 15%, and Fred Thompson at 14%. New Hampshire is similar with Romney at 26%, Huckabee at 18%, Giuliani with 15%, and Fred Thompson at 14%.
- RealClearPolitics GOP National Poll Averages: Giuliani 27.8%, Thompson 14.8%, Romney 13.4%, McCain 12.8%, Huckabee 8.8%, Paul 4.6%. Romney is polling as high as 21% and as low as 8% in some polls. Fred is anywhere between 12-19%.
Maryland's $1.4 Billion Tax Hike
Yes Virginia, our neighbors across the Potomac are crazy.
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, the bum who had a mediocre tenure as Mayor of Baltimore, recently got the enormous Democratic majority in the Maryland state legislature to pass a $1.4 billion tax hike.
See, Maryland, this is what you get when you get rid of a popular incumbent Republican Governor in Bob Ehrlich just because he had an "R" next to his name. Ehrlich had done wonders for the state without having to resort to tax increases. Now, Maryland has earned themselves this huge tax hike.
See, Maryland was facing a $1.4 billion revenue shortfall, so instead of being fiscally wise and trimming down the budget, that simply passed a tax increase that covered the shortfall.
Also passed last night was legislation to allow 15,000 slot machines to be installed in 5 different race tracks in the state of Maryland. This was a measure that former Governor Ehrlich supported and managed to win public support for the idea...and now this is being trumpeted as some kind of victory for O'Malley!
Oy! It's times like this that I'm glad I no longer live in my birthplace.
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, the bum who had a mediocre tenure as Mayor of Baltimore, recently got the enormous Democratic majority in the Maryland state legislature to pass a $1.4 billion tax hike.
See, Maryland, this is what you get when you get rid of a popular incumbent Republican Governor in Bob Ehrlich just because he had an "R" next to his name. Ehrlich had done wonders for the state without having to resort to tax increases. Now, Maryland has earned themselves this huge tax hike.
See, Maryland was facing a $1.4 billion revenue shortfall, so instead of being fiscally wise and trimming down the budget, that simply passed a tax increase that covered the shortfall.
Also passed last night was legislation to allow 15,000 slot machines to be installed in 5 different race tracks in the state of Maryland. This was a measure that former Governor Ehrlich supported and managed to win public support for the idea...and now this is being trumpeted as some kind of victory for O'Malley!
Oy! It's times like this that I'm glad I no longer live in my birthplace.
Saxman On The Verge of a Senate Run
The Virginia Blogosphere's right-wing is abuzz with the news that Del. Chris Saxman (R-Staunton) has formed an exploratory committee and is now seriously contemplating a run at the GOP nomination for John Warner's soon-to-be open U.S. Senate seat. With Jim Gilmore having officially announced his candidacy, this would set up a veritable "old guard vs. new guard" matchup.
The GOP nominee is to be decided by a convention, instead of a primary. This makes Saxman's impending challenge even more interesting.
In an interview with The New Dominion, Sean O'Brien of the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership talks about the possibilities of Saxman vs. Gilmore.
“Chris Saxman and Jim Gilmore really appeal to different bases - geographically different and, I think, ideologically different,”
“I think Jim Gilmore has a challenge in that he is well-known - and for some people that’s a negative, and for some people that’s a tremendous positive. Chris Saxman’s challenge, of course, is that he’s not well-known beyond the Shenandoah Valley and the Republican inner circle. It’s a convention - so that makes it a lot easier for him, because it will be a smaller audience that he will be talking to,” O’Brien said.
Saxman also did an interview with Chris Graham for this week's "The New Dominion Show".
Below The Beltway considers this a good thing, as it prevents Gilmore's candidacy from becoming a "coronation".
The upcoming weeks should be very interesting. Considering I'm not a big Gilmore fan, I'm definitely open to the possibility of a different candidate for Senate.
The GOP nominee is to be decided by a convention, instead of a primary. This makes Saxman's impending challenge even more interesting.
In an interview with The New Dominion, Sean O'Brien of the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership talks about the possibilities of Saxman vs. Gilmore.
“Chris Saxman and Jim Gilmore really appeal to different bases - geographically different and, I think, ideologically different,”
“I think Jim Gilmore has a challenge in that he is well-known - and for some people that’s a negative, and for some people that’s a tremendous positive. Chris Saxman’s challenge, of course, is that he’s not well-known beyond the Shenandoah Valley and the Republican inner circle. It’s a convention - so that makes it a lot easier for him, because it will be a smaller audience that he will be talking to,” O’Brien said.
Saxman also did an interview with Chris Graham for this week's "The New Dominion Show".
Below The Beltway considers this a good thing, as it prevents Gilmore's candidacy from becoming a "coronation".
The upcoming weeks should be very interesting. Considering I'm not a big Gilmore fan, I'm definitely open to the possibility of a different candidate for Senate.
Monday, November 19, 2007
National Review Editors Praise Fred Thompson
From the editors at the National Review Online...
"Fred Thompson may have started his presidential campaign late, but he is the first candidate in either party to come out with solid plans to reform Social Security and immigration. And while most candidates have called for increasing the size of the military, Thompson laid out a detailed plan to achieve that end in a Tuesday speech at the Citadel Military College. On these issues, Thompson has set a standard for specificity, conservatism, and soundness that we would like to see the other Republican candidates measure up to."
There's more. Here is Fred's plan on Social Security in a nutshell.
"Thompson would borrow the best Democratic idea on Social Security, creating investment accounts outside the Social Security system. Under this plan, each worker would have the option of diverting 2 percent of his wages into a 401(k)-type account, with the government adding $2.50 to every dollar saved. These accounts would make it easier for workers, especially low-income workers, to build up assets of their own.
Thompson has announced that, to keep Social Security solvent, he would slow the growth of benefits. Social Security benefits are currently indexed to wage levels. Since wages are expected to rise, initial benefit levels are too. Thompson wouldn’t tinker with the cost-of-living adjustment (in other words, benefits would still keep up with inflation), nor would his plan affect any current or near retiree (it wouldn’t kick in right away). Instead, Thompson’s plan is to eventually decouple benefits from wage growth. This, he argues, is the most equitable way to keep Social Security from running out of money without imposing a massive tax increase. None of the other Republican candidates has put forward a plan that deals so frankly with the challenges of reforming Social Security."
As for illegal immigration...
"On immigration, Thompson rejects the notion that we must choose between deporting millions of people and granting them citizenship. The cornerstone of his proposal is a rejection of amnesty — because, as we learned following the 1986 immigration reform, granting legal status to illegal aliens before fully implementing enforcement measures encourages more illegal immigration.
But Thompson doesn’t accept the false assertion that “no amnesty” means we must initiate mass deportations. Instead, he would gradually shrink the illegal population by stepping up enforcement — ending “sanctuary cities” whose governments direct their police departments not to enforce immigration law; cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants; and completing a proposed border fence."
And Fred's plans to increase the size of the military are sound, as well.
"Thompson’s most recent proposal is a detailed plan to increase the size of the military. Thompson told his Citadel audience that he would spend more on defense, replace worn-down fighting vehicles, and build a “million-member” ground force that would increase the sizes of the Army and Marine Corps to 775,000 and 225,000, respectively. That we need a bigger military has become almost an article of faith among the candidates for president, Democrat and Republican. This is a welcome development; additional detailed proposals like Thompson’s would be even more welcome."
This is what we need, people! A man with a plan! Not just promises and statements that he's the right man...this guy has plans on the important issues that he has fleshed out in a manner that none of the other candidates have done up to this point.
The NRO editors end with this line...
"It’s obvious why conservatives see something to like in Thompson. He has offered clear, conservative ideas on fixing Social Security, policing immigration, and expanding the military. We encourage the other candidates to follow his lead."
This is the kind of man I want as President! That's why I continue to endorse Fred Thompson. Every time I begin to think "what about somebody else", I read something like this that reminds me as to why I support the man in the first place. Fred Thompson is a true leader.
Read the full article.
"Fred Thompson may have started his presidential campaign late, but he is the first candidate in either party to come out with solid plans to reform Social Security and immigration. And while most candidates have called for increasing the size of the military, Thompson laid out a detailed plan to achieve that end in a Tuesday speech at the Citadel Military College. On these issues, Thompson has set a standard for specificity, conservatism, and soundness that we would like to see the other Republican candidates measure up to."
There's more. Here is Fred's plan on Social Security in a nutshell.
"Thompson would borrow the best Democratic idea on Social Security, creating investment accounts outside the Social Security system. Under this plan, each worker would have the option of diverting 2 percent of his wages into a 401(k)-type account, with the government adding $2.50 to every dollar saved. These accounts would make it easier for workers, especially low-income workers, to build up assets of their own.
Thompson has announced that, to keep Social Security solvent, he would slow the growth of benefits. Social Security benefits are currently indexed to wage levels. Since wages are expected to rise, initial benefit levels are too. Thompson wouldn’t tinker with the cost-of-living adjustment (in other words, benefits would still keep up with inflation), nor would his plan affect any current or near retiree (it wouldn’t kick in right away). Instead, Thompson’s plan is to eventually decouple benefits from wage growth. This, he argues, is the most equitable way to keep Social Security from running out of money without imposing a massive tax increase. None of the other Republican candidates has put forward a plan that deals so frankly with the challenges of reforming Social Security."
As for illegal immigration...
"On immigration, Thompson rejects the notion that we must choose between deporting millions of people and granting them citizenship. The cornerstone of his proposal is a rejection of amnesty — because, as we learned following the 1986 immigration reform, granting legal status to illegal aliens before fully implementing enforcement measures encourages more illegal immigration.
But Thompson doesn’t accept the false assertion that “no amnesty” means we must initiate mass deportations. Instead, he would gradually shrink the illegal population by stepping up enforcement — ending “sanctuary cities” whose governments direct their police departments not to enforce immigration law; cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants; and completing a proposed border fence."
And Fred's plans to increase the size of the military are sound, as well.
"Thompson’s most recent proposal is a detailed plan to increase the size of the military. Thompson told his Citadel audience that he would spend more on defense, replace worn-down fighting vehicles, and build a “million-member” ground force that would increase the sizes of the Army and Marine Corps to 775,000 and 225,000, respectively. That we need a bigger military has become almost an article of faith among the candidates for president, Democrat and Republican. This is a welcome development; additional detailed proposals like Thompson’s would be even more welcome."
This is what we need, people! A man with a plan! Not just promises and statements that he's the right man...this guy has plans on the important issues that he has fleshed out in a manner that none of the other candidates have done up to this point.
The NRO editors end with this line...
"It’s obvious why conservatives see something to like in Thompson. He has offered clear, conservative ideas on fixing Social Security, policing immigration, and expanding the military. We encourage the other candidates to follow his lead."
This is the kind of man I want as President! That's why I continue to endorse Fred Thompson. Every time I begin to think "what about somebody else", I read something like this that reminds me as to why I support the man in the first place. Fred Thompson is a true leader.
Read the full article.
Giuliani and Huckabee in '08?
I missed this a few days ago, but it is interesting. Chris at Mason Conservative floats an idea of a Rudy Giuliani/Mike Huckabee ticket in 2008, mostly based upon the fact that Giuliani and Huckabee have a bit of an unspoken agreement that is based at overcoming Mitt Romney in Iowa come January 3rd.
If you think about it, that's not a bad ticket. Rudy is doing a good job of reaching out to conservatives that normally would not support him in a primary. Rudy has been my "2nd choice" for a while, just because I agree more with Fred Thompson ideologically. However, Rudy is showing more and more conservative stances on key issues with me and is starting to draw my attention.
Anyway, Rudy is the "top dog" right now in the primaries and appeals mostly to moderates. Huckabee is a steadily-rising candidate who attracts a lot of social conservatives and, as Hunter Golden put it so well, comes across more as a likeable "grandpa" kind of guy instead of a preacher in the pulpit.
If Rudy can pull the moderates/pro-defense field, and Huckabee rallies the social conservatives, you might have a pretty good ticket come November of next year.
If you think about it, that's not a bad ticket. Rudy is doing a good job of reaching out to conservatives that normally would not support him in a primary. Rudy has been my "2nd choice" for a while, just because I agree more with Fred Thompson ideologically. However, Rudy is showing more and more conservative stances on key issues with me and is starting to draw my attention.
Anyway, Rudy is the "top dog" right now in the primaries and appeals mostly to moderates. Huckabee is a steadily-rising candidate who attracts a lot of social conservatives and, as Hunter Golden put it so well, comes across more as a likeable "grandpa" kind of guy instead of a preacher in the pulpit.
If Rudy can pull the moderates/pro-defense field, and Huckabee rallies the social conservatives, you might have a pretty good ticket come November of next year.
Endorsement for the 1st Congressional District Special Election
Well, the original Podium-endorsed candidate, James Atticus Bowden, did not quite make it far enough to be nominated (although, he did make it pretty far). So, after reviewing the records of GOP nominee Rob Wittman and Dem nominee Phil Forgit, the Podium has decided to endorse Rob Wittman for the 1st Congressional District of Virginia.
Reminder to readers from the 1st Congressional District, your special election is on December 11th.
Wittman currently is making fiscal responsibility and 2nd Amendment rights some of his top issues. He also supports stronger border security and tougher stances against illegal aliens. His support of the Bush tax cuts is also a fiscal strongpoint.
Go support the next Congressman from the state of Virginia, Rob Wittman!
Reminder to readers from the 1st Congressional District, your special election is on December 11th.
Wittman currently is making fiscal responsibility and 2nd Amendment rights some of his top issues. He also supports stronger border security and tougher stances against illegal aliens. His support of the Bush tax cuts is also a fiscal strongpoint.
Go support the next Congressman from the state of Virginia, Rob Wittman!
Brazil Moving Forward With Nuclear Sub Program to Protect Offshore Oil Reserve
Brazil is looking to build a nuclear submarine (or two) to protect the recently-discovered Tupi offshore oil reserve that has been described as "a massive find".
President Lula da Silva authorized $540 million in funding for the nuclear submarine program, which has been talked about for years, but never pushed as hard as it is now. Silva has also been trying to push forward with restarting the building of nuclear power plants as a cleaner, more efficient way of producing energy.
Nonetheless, this oil find is big news for South America's largest and strongest economy, especially considering that they are a key U.S. ally in the Western Hemisphere.
President Lula da Silva authorized $540 million in funding for the nuclear submarine program, which has been talked about for years, but never pushed as hard as it is now. Silva has also been trying to push forward with restarting the building of nuclear power plants as a cleaner, more efficient way of producing energy.
Nonetheless, this oil find is big news for South America's largest and strongest economy, especially considering that they are a key U.S. ally in the Western Hemisphere.
Stem Cell Revelation: Human Embryos Not Needed
Well, this bit of news certainly should kill the left-wings calls for embryonic stem cell research using human embryos, which means that the Dems lose on this one. When those who opposed it said "there have to be other ways to create stem cells, and we should pursue those ways", they weren't just blowing anti-abortion smoke.
Professor Ian Wilmut, famous for leading the team that successfully cloned sheep and gave us "Dolly" back in 1997, has decided not to pursue a license to clone human embryos.
Why? Simple, they're no longer needed.
Professor Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan has discovered a way to create human embryo stem cells without the need to create life for the purpose of eventually destroying it. They have discovered a way to revert adult cells back to embryonic form.
Wilmut believes that this is the future of stem cell research, and Wilmut has decided to support this. The greatest thing about this is that this method of creating stems cells is actually easier and more efficient than fertilizing a human egg just to get the embryo and destroying it.
It is believed that cures for many diseases, as well as methods of repairing damaged tissue from heart attacks, can be found through this stem cell research.
That is research I think we can ALL get behind.
Professor Ian Wilmut, famous for leading the team that successfully cloned sheep and gave us "Dolly" back in 1997, has decided not to pursue a license to clone human embryos.
Why? Simple, they're no longer needed.
Professor Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan has discovered a way to create human embryo stem cells without the need to create life for the purpose of eventually destroying it. They have discovered a way to revert adult cells back to embryonic form.
Wilmut believes that this is the future of stem cell research, and Wilmut has decided to support this. The greatest thing about this is that this method of creating stems cells is actually easier and more efficient than fertilizing a human egg just to get the embryo and destroying it.
It is believed that cures for many diseases, as well as methods of repairing damaged tissue from heart attacks, can be found through this stem cell research.
That is research I think we can ALL get behind.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
I Hope This Is a Joke
I received a forwarded e-mail asking people not to accept this coin as legal tender.
If you can't tell, the motto "In God We Trust" is not on this coin.
Now, whether this is some kind of collectors coin, fake coin, or something else, I don't know...but I do not believe that the phrase should be taken off the coin. Should this be true (and I hope it isn't), I encourage people not to accept it as legal tender to force it out of circulation.
Kaine: "Lean Budget" in '08, State Economy Still Relatively Strong
In an interview with The New Dominion, Governor Tim Kaine discussed the next two-year budget.
“I do think at least the first year of the next two-year budget is going to be a pretty lean budget. But there’s initiatives that we need to do to improve quality of life, and we’ll find ways by economizing in other areas to do the initiatives that matter,” stated Governor Kaine.
While I'm glad that he is at least looking to trim down the fat first, I would like to see if he will prove to be more prudent and fiscally conservative than his predecessor, Mark Warner, who went so far as to raise taxes on a budget surplus. If Kaine can manage to overcome the revenue shortfall by being smart with the revenue that the state is bringing in, and not raising taxes, he will definitely win a few points with Virginia citizens.
However, relatively speaking, things aren't that bad according to Kaine.
Later in the interview, the Governor assured Virginians of the strength of the state's economy, “The Virginia economy is very strong relative to other state’s economies. We’re trying to deal right now with a $640 million revenue shortfall. Just across the Potomac in Maryland, they’re dealing with a $1.7 billion shortfall, and their budget is smaller than ours - that is a huge percentage of their budget. And many states are in that same position. So I think we’re relatively fortunate. We have an economy that’s quite strong relative to other states - but national trends affect us just like they do anyone”
I would agree with that statement, our state's economy does not seem to be in any kind of iminent danger at this point. I will be interested to see how this year's budget shapes up.
“I do think at least the first year of the next two-year budget is going to be a pretty lean budget. But there’s initiatives that we need to do to improve quality of life, and we’ll find ways by economizing in other areas to do the initiatives that matter,” stated Governor Kaine.
While I'm glad that he is at least looking to trim down the fat first, I would like to see if he will prove to be more prudent and fiscally conservative than his predecessor, Mark Warner, who went so far as to raise taxes on a budget surplus. If Kaine can manage to overcome the revenue shortfall by being smart with the revenue that the state is bringing in, and not raising taxes, he will definitely win a few points with Virginia citizens.
However, relatively speaking, things aren't that bad according to Kaine.
Later in the interview, the Governor assured Virginians of the strength of the state's economy, “The Virginia economy is very strong relative to other state’s economies. We’re trying to deal right now with a $640 million revenue shortfall. Just across the Potomac in Maryland, they’re dealing with a $1.7 billion shortfall, and their budget is smaller than ours - that is a huge percentage of their budget. And many states are in that same position. So I think we’re relatively fortunate. We have an economy that’s quite strong relative to other states - but national trends affect us just like they do anyone”
I would agree with that statement, our state's economy does not seem to be in any kind of iminent danger at this point. I will be interested to see how this year's budget shapes up.
Rudy's Got 200 Reasons Why He's Better Than Any Dem...
...and on Friday, he laid them out to an audience celebrating the 25th Anniversary of the Federalist Society. His reasons were the 200 federal judges he would appoint as President. He apparently drew a lot of applause and praise from this crowd, which is interesting since it is the Federalist Society.
If you don't know, the Federalist Society is a group of legal conservatives who favor judges that interpret the laws based on the constitution, and decry the appointing of activist judges that attempt to legislate from the bench. The Federalist Society, obviously, is also a supporter of stronger state's rights and general federalist viewpoints.
What makes it surprising that Giuliani did so well with this crowd is because he is widely recognized as being a bit more moderate than federalists tend to like in their candidates.
Giuliani also joked that Hillary Clinton should be inducted into the Federalist Society based on her statement that the states should choose whether or not to provide drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
"This is the only time in her career that she has decided anything should be decided on a state-by-state basis," Giuliani quipped, "And you know something, she picked out absolutely the wrong one."
For Giuliani to gain the support from a group like this, as well as his successful attempts to court support from high-profile social conservatives, bodes well for his campaign. It also shows a willingness to reach beyond his generally moderate base.
(h/t Drudge Report)
If you don't know, the Federalist Society is a group of legal conservatives who favor judges that interpret the laws based on the constitution, and decry the appointing of activist judges that attempt to legislate from the bench. The Federalist Society, obviously, is also a supporter of stronger state's rights and general federalist viewpoints.
What makes it surprising that Giuliani did so well with this crowd is because he is widely recognized as being a bit more moderate than federalists tend to like in their candidates.
Giuliani also joked that Hillary Clinton should be inducted into the Federalist Society based on her statement that the states should choose whether or not to provide drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.
"This is the only time in her career that she has decided anything should be decided on a state-by-state basis," Giuliani quipped, "And you know something, she picked out absolutely the wrong one."
For Giuliani to gain the support from a group like this, as well as his successful attempts to court support from high-profile social conservatives, bodes well for his campaign. It also shows a willingness to reach beyond his generally moderate base.
(h/t Drudge Report)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
